The poster. Photo: Protein World via Facebook.
Show Hide image

The inspiring young feminists who took back the beach from Protein World

The women proving that to have a "beach body", you just need to take your body to the beach.

The day-to-day business of being a feminist involves a lot of sighing. Take the past couple of weeks, for instance, when London commuters have been subject to advertisements from Protein World asking women if they’re “beach body ready”. 

The posters have received widespread criticism everywhere from Have I Got News For You to Hadley Freeman's column in the Guardian. More than 70,000 people have signed a petition on calling for their removal, saying the advertisements seek to make people “feel guilty”.

But some of the most glorious moments in feminism happen when a woman sees an attempt to shame her and goes: “Oh, you don’t like it when I do this thing I'm doing? Then I’m going to do it more. And I’m going to invite loads of other people to do it, too.”

So to Hyde Park, where Tara Costello, Fiona Longmuir and Juliette Burton have organised an event to “take back the beach”. After Tara posted a photo of herself giving the finger to the Protein World poster on the tube, Fiona contacted her over twitter. “We thought it’d be fun to say, of course you can look like this, she’s beautiful - but you don’t have to look like that to be beautiful,” Fiona tells me.

The pair photographed themselves standing by the poster in their bikinis and posted the pic to twitter, where it quickly got hundreds of retweets. “But then,” Longmuir adds, “we realised we’re only two body types. We decided to get as many different looking people as we could.”

Photo by Fiona Longmuir.

They proposed that others who were similarly disgusted with the Protein World message gather in their swimwear at Speaker’s Corner in London's Hyde Park, hoping to prove that you don't have to change your body before you can be comfortable in public. Both were surprised at the level of the support they received as the idea quickly went viral.

Unsurprisingly, there's also been some backlash. “Oh my gosh, yes,” says Longmuir when I ask her her about it. “There’ve been so many comments on my body it’s ridiculous, but it’s just kind of . . .” — at this point, she trails off; over my left shoulder, a group of women are approaching with a huge inflatable banana.

Tara Costello takes over. “When we were taking the photo I knew I’d get the worst [criticism], because the kind of society we’re in thinks if you’re not a size 10 you’re automatically fat, unfortunately. The surprising thing was that people e-mailed me really long, hateful things. That was the thing that took me aback. Wow, you actually took the effort to hunt down my e-mail and do this.

Juliette Burton, who has suffered from anorexia and believes that advertising like this can exacerbate mental health problems, has called the last week a "steep learning curve". The brand replied to her on Twitter when she criticised the advert and others quickly piled in, calling her the "definition of insanity" and an "ugly dyke".

Protein World reply to Juliette Burton.


Protein World's CEO even called the women “terrorists” - but the turnout here, where there must be a hundred women, suggests plenty are glad someone spoke out.

The people I meet cite all sorts of reasons for being there, but all of them are tired of sexist advertising. Some of the first to arrive are from Fourth Wave, a new feminist activist group in London. “We just think everyone should be able to go to the beach,” one of them tells me, laughing a little. “Not to be a supermodel, fine, but surely the beach should be alright.”

Protestors in Hyde Park. Photo: Fiona Longmuir

It’s clear that for many the adverts affected them personally. Lottie, who has come along with her mum Alison, explains that she’s had an eating disorder for ten years and is “pretty bored” with this sort of marketing. “I’m bored with having to put up with it, with not having any support. So we’ll support ourselves.”

Saffron Skye also suffered from an eating disorder when she was younger. “Seeing this advert everywhere telling girls it’s better to be skinny: I couldn’t stand for it.”

Plenty of men have come along too. For John from Bristol, it was his two young daughters that prompted it. “The whole body image thing you see in the media today isn’t really fair on them, or women in general.”

One group of teenage girls also note the demands placed on young women. “Because we’re all thirteen and fourteen, there’s a lot of pressure on our bodies at the moment,” one of them tells me. “We belong to a feminist group at school, and when we talked about body image it really struck us how upset everyone is with their bodies. We want everyone to accept that they’re beautiful, and this event is a step forward.”

Her friend agrees. “Yeah. Everyone could find one thing they hate about their bodies. It would be better if people loved themselves for who they are.”

Their solution? “Everyone should feel comfortable. You shouldn’t have anything you feel insecure about. Just live.”

If this is the next generation of feminists, I think as I get back on the Tube home, I give this sort of advertising ten years - tops.


The petition continues on Juliette Burton's live show 'Look at Me' is about body image and mental health. You can watch the trailer here on YouTube.

Stephanie Boland is digital assistant at the New Statesman. She tweets at @stephanieboland

Show Hide image

We're racing towards another private debt crisis - so why did no one see it coming?

The Office for Budget Responsibility failed to foresee the rise in household debt. 

This is a call for a public inquiry on the current situation regarding private debt.

For almost a decade now, since 2007, we have been living a lie. And that lie is preparing to wreak havoc on our economy. If we do not create some kind of impartial forum to discuss what is actually happening, the results might well prove disastrous. 

The lie I am referring to is the idea that the financial crisis of 2008, and subsequent “Great Recession,” were caused by profligate government spending and subsequent public debt. The exact opposite is in fact the case. The crash happened because of dangerously high levels of private debt (a mortgage crisis specifically). And - this is the part we are not supposed to talk about—there is an inverse relation between public and private debt levels.

If the public sector reduces its debt, overall private sector debt goes up. That's what happened in the years leading up to 2008. Now austerity is making it happening again. And if we don't do something about it, the results will, inevitably, be another catastrophe.

The winners and losers of debt

These graphs show the relationship between public and private debt. They are both forecasts from the Office for Budget Responsibility, produced in 2015 and 2017. 

This is what the OBR was projecting what would happen around now back in 2015:

This year the OBR completely changed its forecast. This is how it now projects things are likely to turn out:

First, notice how both diagrams are symmetrical. What happens on top (that part of the economy that is in surplus) precisely mirrors what happens in the bottom (that part of the economy that is in deficit). This is called an “accounting identity.”

As in any ledger sheet, credits and debits have to match. The easiest way to understand this is to imagine there are just two actors, government, and the private sector. If the government borrows £100, and spends it, then the government has a debt of £100. But by spending, it has injected £100 more pounds into the private economy. In other words, -£100 for the government, +£100 for everyone else in the diagram. 

Similarly, if the government taxes someone for £100 , then the government is £100 richer but there’s £100 subtracted from the private economy (+£100 for government, -£100 for everybody else on the diagram).

So what implications does this kind of bookkeeping have for the overall economy? It means that if the government goes into surplus, then everyone else has to go into debt.

We tend to think of money as if it is a bunch of poker chips already lying around, but that’s not how it really works. Money has to be created. And money is created when banks make loans. Either the government borrows money and injects it into the economy, or private citizens borrow money from banks. Those banks don’t take the money from people’s savings or anywhere else, they just make it up. Anyone can write an IOU. But only banks are allowed to issue IOUs that the government will accept in payment for taxes. (In other words, there actually is a magic money tree. But only banks are allowed to use it.)

There are other factors. The UK has a huge trade deficit (blue), and that means the government (yellow) also has to run a deficit (print money, or more accurately, get banks to do it) to inject into the economy to pay for all those Chinese trainers, American iPads, and German cars. The total amount of money can also fluctuate. But the real point here is, the less the government is in debt, the more everyone else must be. Austerity measures will necessarily lead to rising levels of private debt. And this is exactly what has happened.

Now, if this seems to have very little to do with the way politicians talk about such matters, there's a simple reason: most politicians don’t actually know any of this. A recent survey showed 90 per cent of MPs don't even understand where money comes from (they think it's issued by the Royal Mint). In reality, debt is money. If no one owed anyone anything at all there would be no money and the economy would grind to a halt.

But of course debt has to be owed to someone. These charts show who owes what to whom.

The crisis in private debt

Bearing all this in mind, let's look at those diagrams again - keeping our eye particularly on the dark blue that represents household debt. In the first, 2015 version, the OBR duly noted that there was a substantial build-up of household debt in the years leading up to the crash of 2008. This is significant because it was the first time in British history that total household debts were higher than total household savings, and therefore the household sector itself was in deficit territory. (Corporations, at the same time, were raking in enormous profits.) But it also predicted this wouldn't happen again.

True, the OBR observed, austerity and the reduction of government deficits meant private debt levels would have to go up. However, the OBR economists insisted this wouldn't be a problem because the burden would fall not on households but on corporations. Business-friendly Tory policies would, they insisted, inspire a boom in corporate expansion, which would mean frenzied corporate borrowing (that huge red bulge below the line in the first diagram, which was supposed to eventually replace government deficits entirely). Ordinary households would have little or nothing to worry about.

This was total fantasy. No such frenzied boom took place.

In the second diagram, two years later, the OBR is forced to acknowledge this. Corporations are just raking in the profits and sitting on them. The household sector, on the other hand, is a rolling catastrophe. Austerity has meant falling wages, less government spending on social services (or anything else), and higher de facto taxes. This puts the squeeze on household budgets and people are forced to borrow. As a result, not only are households in overall deficit for the second time in British history, the situation is actually worse than it was in the years leading up to 2008.

And remember: it was a mortgage crisis that set off the 2008 crash, which almost destroyed the world economy and plunged millions into penury. Not a crisis in public debt. A crisis in private debt.

An inquiry

In 2015, around the time the original OBR predictions came out, I wrote an essay in the Guardian predicting that austerity and budget-balancing would create a disastrous crisis in private debt. Now it's so clearly, unmistakably, happening that even the OBR cannot deny it.

I believe the time has come for there be a public investigation - a formal public inquiry, in fact - into how this could be allowed to happen. After the 2008 crash, at least the economists in Treasury and the Bank of England could plausibly claim they hadn't completely understood the relation between private debt and financial instability. Now they simply have no excuse.

What on earth is an institution called the “Office for Budget Responsibility” credulously imagining corporate borrowing binges in order to suggest the government will balance the budget to no ill effects? How responsible is that? Even the second chart is extremely odd. Up to 2017, the top and bottom of the diagram are exact mirrors of one another, as they ought to be. However, in the projected future after 2017, the section below the line is much smaller than the section above, apparently seriously understating the amount both of future government, and future private, debt. In other words, the numbers don't add up.

The OBR told the New Statesman ​that it was not aware of any errors in its 2015 forecast for corporate sector net lending, and that the forecast was based on the available data. It said the forecast for business investment has been revised down because of the uncertainty created by Brexit. 

Still, if the “Office of Budget Responsibility” was true to its name, it should be sounding off the alarm bells right about now. So far all we've got is one mention of private debt and a mild warning about the rise of personal debt from the Bank of England, which did not however connect the problem to austerity, and one fairly strong statement from a maverick columnist in the Daily Mail. Otherwise, silence. 

The only plausible explanation is that institutions like the Treasury, OBR, and to a degree as well the Bank of England can't, by definition, warn against the dangers of austerity, however alarming the situation, because they have been set up the way they have in order to justify austerity. It's important to emphasise that most professional economists have never supported Conservative policies in this regard. The policy was adopted because it was convenient to politicians; institutions were set up in order to support it; economists were hired in order to come up with arguments for austerity, rather than to judge whether it would be a good idea. At present, this situation has led us to the brink of disaster.

The last time there was a financial crash, the Queen famously asked: why was no one able to foresee this? We now have the tools. Perhaps the most important task for a public inquiry will be to finally ask: what is the real purpose of the institutions that are supposed to foresee such matters, to what degree have they been politicised, and what would it take to turn them back into institutions that can at least inform us if we're staring into the lights of an oncoming train?